Skip to main content

Challenging Methodological and Ethical Conventions to Facilitate Research That Is Responsive to People with Learning Disabilities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research

Abstract

People with learning disabilities continue to be denied the opportunity to be actively engaged in the production of research. In this chapter, we draw on two studies in which we attempted to be inclusive of people with learning disabilities. The first study explored experiences of women with learning disabilities in relation to mental health; the second study delivered an intervention designed to reduce falls for people with learning disabilities. We address four aspects of the research process in both studies that highlighted the importance of ethical considerations that take into account inclusivity, recruitment, informed consent, communicating research-related tasks, and interview approaches. We outline how relational ethics should be central to efforts to be responsive in research that is inclusive of people with learning disabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    People First New Zealand, a self-advocacy group, has challenged disability researchers and the wider disability sector to use the term ‘learning disability’ instead of ‘intellectual disability’. They feel the term is more reflective of the difficulties they experience, respectful to them as people, and easier to say. Therefore, ‘learning disabilities’ is used instead of intellectual disabilities throughout this chapter, except when intellectual disability was used in the original title of a study.

  2. 2.

    In order to limit the extent to which we ‘other ’ the individuals to whom we are referring when referring to our experiences of working with people with learning disabilities in research contexts we have, as much as possible, used the terms people (or women specifically) to refer to those we were inviting to take part in research, and participants to refer to those who were taking part in our research.

  3. 3.

    Two of the authors of this chapter, Brigit Mirfin-Veitch and Jenny Conder, were research team members on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Women with Intellectual Disability study.

  4. 4.

    The research was approved by the New Zealand Multi Region Ethics Committee (reference: MEC/09/05/054).

  5. 5.

    Leigh Hale, Gareth Treharne, and Brigit Mirfin-Veitch were research team members on the Prevention of Falls for Adults with Intellectual Disability study.

  6. 6.

    The study received ethical approval from the New Zealand Upper South A Regional Ethics Committee (URA/I1108104).

  7. 7.

    Locality organisations are organisations that have agreed to be involved in research, usually with regard to participant recruitment, or as a site for data collection. In New Zealand, ethics committees require signed evidence of each locality organisation’s agreement to act in such roles.

References

  • Bigby, C., & Frawley, P. (2010). Reflections on doing inclusive research in the ‘Making Life Good in the Community’ study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668251003716425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conder, J. A., Mirfin-Veitch, B. F., & Gates, S. (2015). Risk and resilience factors in the mental health and well-being of women with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 28(6), 572–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, C., Clemson, L., Stancliffe, R., Durvasula, S., & Sherrington, C. (2010). Incidence of and risk factors for falls amongst adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(12), 1054–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkelaar, L., Smulders, E., van Scrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H., Geurts, A., & Weerdesteyn, V. (2012). A review of balance and gait capacities in relation to persons with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(1), 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etherington, K. (2007). Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankena, T. K., Naaldenberg, J., Cardol, M., Meijering, J. V., Leusink, G., & van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk, H. M. J. (2016). Exploring academics’ views on designs, methods, characteristics and outcomes of inclusive health research with people with intellectual disabilities: A modified Delphi study. BMJ Open, 6(8), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, D., & Lawthom, R. (2005). Epistemological journeys in participatory action research: Alliances between community psychology and disability studies. Disability & Society, 20(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590500059077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T., & Balandin, S. (2004). Ethical research involving people with intellectual disabilities. In E. Emerson, C. Hatton, T. Thompson, & T. Parmenter (Eds.), Applied research in intellectual disabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunzenhauser, M. (2006). A moral epistemology of knowing subjects: Theorising a relational turn for qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 621–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, L. A., Mirfin-Veitch, B. F., & Treharne, G. J. (2016). Prevention of falls for adults with intellectual disability (PROFAID): A feasibility study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halse, C., & Honey, A. (2007). Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 336–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollomotz, A. (2017). Successful interviews with people with intellectual disability. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117713810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahman, M., Geist, M., Rodriguez, K., Graglia, P., & DeRoche, K. (2011). Culturally responsive relational reflexive ethics in research: The three rs. Quality and Quantity International Journal of Methodology, 45, 1397–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2009). Understanding disability: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette-Kunntz, H., Lunsky, Y., Lysaght, R., Martin, L., & Saaltink, R. (2013). Partnering in the field of intellectual/developmental disabilities—Lessons for participant recruitment. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 19(2), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Øye, C., Øvre Sorensen, N., & Glasdam, S. (2016). Qualitative research ethics on the spot: Not only on the desktop. Nursing Ethics, 23(4), 455–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pal, J., Hale, L., Mirfin-Veitch, B., & Claydon, L. (2014). Injuries and falls among adults with intellectual disability: A prospective New Zealand cohort study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 39(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townson, L., Macauley, S., Harkness, E., Chapman, R., Docherty, A., Dias, J., … McNulty, N. (2004). We are all in the same boat: Doing people-led research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00282.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, J. (2001). Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in learning disability. Disability & Society, 16(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120035807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board, Lottery Health Committee, and the Health Research Council who funded respectively the two studies referred to in this chapter. Finally, we express our appreciation for the contributions of all those people who contributed to the research described here in a myriad of different ways.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brigit Mirfin-Veitch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mirfin-Veitch, B., Conder, J., Treharne, G.J., Hale, L., Richardson, G. (2018). Challenging Methodological and Ethical Conventions to Facilitate Research That Is Responsive to People with Learning Disabilities. In: Macleod, C., Marx, J., Mnyaka, P., Treharne, G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics